doctoral candidate in rhetoric and scientific and technical communication
rhetoric
defintions of…
04 years ago
I saw a link to definitions of rhetoric on Michael’s site. The first thing I noticed is that they came from a Stanford class on
Gender and the History of Rhetoric. Then guess what I noticed. Oh, yes…not a female among all of the people who are quoted as defining rhetoric. I recognize that historically women’s views on this discipline have not been recorded (if, indeed, there were many women who were writing their views on this topic). However, there isn’t even a current definition attributed to a woman, and there are plenty of women writing about rhetoric now.
However, I then went to the site where the definitions were chosen from and there were plenty of women. Whew. Really, it bothered me because this discipline that I love (and I do — I think it is the basis for so much that we do) seems to be just another field that I’ve chosen (being in a technology field and having a minor in geology) that does not seem to have a balanced view. Not true for modern-day research and instruction, though. There are plenty of women writing about this discipline. Take, for instance, Sonja and Karen Foss (whom I’ve quoted in papers):
“Rhetoric is an action human beings perform when they use symbols for the purpose of communicating with one another . . , [and it] is a perspective humans take that involves focusing on symbolic processes.”
This is the crux of my argument in my thesis. We use symbols to communicate and that perspective that humans take is what makes the process interesting. Mostly because most people don’t really pay as much attention to the symbols they are using as those of us who study it do. They don’t look at how they place an image, what font they choose, what colors are chosen, or what wording is specifically chosen and how that will affect audience perspective.
I digress, however, because I didn’t want to go off on my dismay with the focus on male rhetoricians or my interests in a particular area of this discipline. Instead, I wanted to share more definitions and resources for those of you who are interested in rhetoric, methods of argument, and in understanding the components of persuasive writing/speech.
Wikipedia gives a good, albeit brief, overview of the history and use of the term “rhetoric.” You get the gist of rhetoric for what took me over a semester to study in ancient rhetorical studies. Even in the list of contemporary rhetoricians, however, there are very few women. Very unfortunate.
The staff/faculty in the Division of Classics at the University of Kentucky has posted a A Glossary of Rhetorical Terms with Examples. I like this list because it really shows some of the great devices that are used in creating a rhetorical appeal. Reall it’s because the list starts off with alliteration and I’ve long been a fan of alliteration. I mean, just the word is beautiful in the way it rolls off the tongue. Ahem.
BYU defines rhetoric in one page with some great links to discuss components of rhetoric. They discuss two of the three main types of rhetorical appeal (pathos and logos — but where is ethos???).
Finally, Robert A. Harris shares a Handbook of Rhetorical Devices (many of which will be redundant if you looked at Kentucky’s list first). Harris, however, really goes more in depth with his explanation of the uses of rhetorical devices. It’s not enough to just know what a device is and what the definition of it is. It even more important to understand how it is used and how you could use it in your own writing and speaking. You probably already do and don’t realize it.
I think I love rhetoric because of how it really is a part of every day of our lives. We all use it. It’s not limited to political candidates telling us what they want us to believe. Each of us who has a website or blog uses it each day in the ways we choose to present ourselves. Each of us uses it when we talk to others or when we write an email or memo. We all use it, but we don’t always realize that we are using it.
(image of plato courtesy of wikipedia)
colors, fonts, and styles
04 years ago
What do colors, fonts, and styles say to us? In politics, as well as on our blogs, in our photography, and in our presentatio at work (or school), these elements matter a great deal. If they matter so much, why do so few of us give them the respect they deserve?
The New York Times has a GREAT editorial about the differences and impacts in fonts, colors, and styles in the U.S. Presidential race.
found via .viz
write me a letter
04 years ago
Remember, back in the day, when we used to put pen to paper and write lovely, heart-wrenching personal letters to our loved ones? We would catch them up on what has been happening since the last letter and let them know how we were doing. We might ask a few questions to encourage them to write back. I know, I know. Some of us still write snail mail but it seems to be a fashion that is quickly going with the horse-drawn carriages — a relic of days gone by.
The thing about the letters, at least my letters, is that I took care to write them. I was careful with the wording. I wanted to get it right. I wanted to make sure that my message was clear and that the person on the other end (my audience, if you will) was able to understand what that message was (typically: I love you. I miss you. Please write me back.).
I was careful with the wording. This is key. Words are power. How we use them, what context we frame them in, and how we present them are all elements of style that can either convey or convolute a message.
In today’s world of email, IM’ing, Twitter, Pownce, Facebook, MySpace, and more, we are shooting words all over the place without understanding their velocity, power, or impact. We need to do that more.
AgentXPQ takes that into account when he writes a “getting to know you” email.
Words are key. How we use them determines how others view us.
the rhetorical musketeers
0This is absolutely brilliant. Found via Digg via Julian Worker at GroundReport.
Just a story about Ethos, Logos, and Pathos, the new musketeers who right wrongs, as long as they are appealed to in the correct way.
The four horsemen were riding through the dark forest on a particular day in the recent past. They could all hear a woman’s voice in the distance and, luckily for her, the horsemen’s path took them right by where she was.
As they approached the horsemen could more clearly hear what she was saying, or rather screaming:
“HELP ME, HELP ME, SAVE ME FROM THIS TALL TOWER IN THE DARK FOREST.”
As the horsemen approached the tall tower, the woman, who was in fact a damsel in lots of distress by the name of Sharon, saw them.
“HELP ME, HELP ME PLEASE.”
The four horsemen ignored her pleas and carried on riding, riding.
“PLEASE HELP ME, I AM A DAMSEL IN DISTRESS IN A TALL TOWER IN A DARK FOREST, I HAVE BEEN KIDNAPPED BY THE EVIL DWARF SHRUBEGEOG, HELP ME.”
With this, one of the four horsemen put up his hand indicating that they should all stop. The horsemen came to a halt, turned their horses around and trotted over to the base of the tower.
“Can we help you, O damsel in distress?” said one of the men.
“YES YOU CAN, YOU CAN” began the damsel, but she was interrupted by the same man, who said “There is no need to shout, we can hear you well enough from here.”
“Sorry,” said the damsel, “my name is Sharon, I would like to be rescued, will you help me?”
“We may rescue you fair damsel, but it depends on what you say” said the man.
“WHAT?” said Sharon, “WHAT MORE CAN I SAY? WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW? A FAIR DAMSEL, TALL TOWER, DARK FOREST, EVIL DWARF, WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED? I NEED HELP!”
The four horsemen said nothing.
“WHAT ARE YOU DOING? RESCUE ME FROM THIS TOWER, BEFORE SHRUBEGEOG RETURNS.”
The four horsemen said nothing.
“Are you going to help me?” sobbed Sharon, “What are you doing? It is just my luck for my screams to attract four rescuers who won’t rescue me at all.”
“We are assessing the rhetorical situation,” said the man, “And we need to know what the exigence is before we can modify it.”
“Who are you? Are you the servants of the evil dwarf come to torment me?” wailed Sharon.
“We are the four Musketeers, three of whom are Rhetorical Musketeers – O damsel in distress, we want to help you, but you have to appeal to the other three in the correct way.”
“WHAT!” screamed Sharon, “Sorry, what do you mean, what is an exigence?”
“An exigence is when something is other than it should be,” said the man.
“I see,” said Sharon, and had to think for a moment or two, “So the exigence in this case is the fact that I don’t normally live in a tall tower in a dark forest, that I am not normally the prisoner of an evil dwarf and that I DON’T NORMALLY SCREAM HELP ME HELP ME!! AT THE TOP OF MY VOICE HOPING TO BE RESCUED.”
The four horsemen nodded in agreement.
“That sounds reasonable to me,” said the man, who was the only one to have spoken so far, “but now you have to appeal to these three gentleman individually, before we will all rescue you and thus modify the exigence. I will introduce them to you one at a time, but first I will tell you who I am.”
“Right, well that sounds like progress to me,” said Sharon, “but can you please hurry, I fear that Shrubegeog will be back in a minute or two and will thwart your rescue.”
“My name is D Arthur Agnan,” said the man, “and I am a Musketeer of the King. My three friends are Rhetorical Musketeers of the King, please let me introduce them to you!”
“The first Rhetorical Musketeer is the charming man on your left,” said Arthur Agnan, “his name is Pathos. In order to be rescued by him, you must appeal to his emotions and feelings.”
Pathos waved cheerily to Sharon and bowed deeply. He indicated a handkerchief he was carrying and mimed the motion of wiping tears from his eyes.
“The second Rhetorical Musketeer is the authoritative figure in the middle, his name is Ethos and to appeal to him you have to indicate your credibility to be rescued.”
Ethos tipped his hat to the damsel and from his tunic drew out a parchment signed by the King, which indicated that Ethos was a Rhetorical Musketeer of the King, First Class. He showed the parchment to Sharon, indicating the official seal on it.
“The third Rhetorical Musketeer is the intellectual looking gentleman on your right, his name is Logos and to appeal to him you must relate some statistics and figures which show that you are the right person to be rescued at this stage.”
Logos smiled at the damsel, showing eight teeth; he gave the V for Victory sign with two fingers on his right hand. His horse was precisely 17 hands high and had exactly 28,943 hairs in its tail. Logos had counted them all. Twice. Just to be sure.
Sharon was in tears and felt very confused by all the appeals she had to make. But, she reasoned, at least she had a chance to use her skills to an audience, a primary audience at that. Her motivation was to be rescued. She wouldn’t have to use the passive voice either!
“I think I understand what you are telling me,” said Sharon, “I am a bit confused by which of you needs what appeal, but I will try my best. However, I do get the distinct impression that shouting and screaming SAVE ME at the top of my voice just won’t work with you musketeers.”
The Rhetorical Musketeers said nothing. Pathos had his handkerchief poised, Ethos stroked his official Musketeer’s beard, and Logos flicked two flies from his horse’s mane.
“Dear Rhetorical Musketeers, I want you to rescue me. Pathos I appeal to you first. How would you like your daughter to be locked away in a tall tower in a dark forest, waiting for an evil dwarf to breathe horrid fumes over her all night, as she writhed, screamed, and begged to be free, to return home to her family, her loving mother, her caring, handsome father, her…”
“Enough!” blubbed Pathos, crying into his handkerchief, “I will rescue thee fair damsel, just say no more.”
“One down, two to go,” said Sharon, gaining some encouragement from Pathos’ sobbing. “Ethos, it is to you I appeal next. My father is an adviser to the Archbishop, and is a confidante of the King of our country. My mother is a magistrate, my brother is in the Army, and my sister is married to a judge, who..”.
“Enough,” said Ethos, impressed with the family connections of the damsel, “I too will rescue thee.”
“One more to go,” smiled Sharon, “Logos I appeal to thee. Of the 36 damsels in the village, the dwarf chose to kidnap me because I was 18 years old, because I weighed 121 pounds and because I am 5 feet 7 inches tall. My IQ is 134, I have three sisters, and I have recently passed exam 234.5B to enter the Civil Service as…”
“What we waiting for?” said Logos, overwhelmed by the facts and figures of the damsel, “let’s free this fair damsel before it is too late.”
With that the musketeers broke down the door of the tower and rescued the damsel in distress. Sharon was so thankful, but the Rhetorical Musketeers had to leave. As they departed, Pathos waved his still slightly-damp handkerchief at her, Ethos gave her an official Musketeer’s salute and Logos smiled a broad smile, with 14 teeth showing this time. “Take care fair damsel,” said D Arthur Agnan, “Look after yourself and your family.”
Sharon waved as the four horsemen trotted off into the dark forest, towards a house where three bears lived, whose porridge had recently been eaten by another young damsel. But that, as they say, is another story waiting to be told.
the rhetoric of rhetoric
04 years ago
I have a pet peeve about the use of the word “rhetoric.” The consensus in modern day usage is to use it as a derogatory term. For instance, “the politician spewed his rhetoric to convince us to think his way.” What does that mean? He shared his form of persuasive language to influence us.
We all do that. Each and every day, each of us engages in rhetoric. Got a kid? Want him or her to clean his or her room? How do you convince your child to clean a room? You use rhetoric.
Do you have clients who need a little convincing that what you are offering is really the best product/work/idea that they can get anywhere? You use rhetoric.
Want to convince your IT person that you’re really not insane and Word really did just reformat itself to mess up your entire thesis (my little rant against Microsoft Word — which thinks it knows how to format my paper better than I do — although I didn’t go to an IT person for assistance)? You use rhetoric.
Rhetoric is, simply, the act of persuading. We post images and hope that someone feels something about them. That’s visual rhetoric. I post a rant about crazy water usage by Phoenicians (who really do need those lush lawns in the middle of a DESERT!). That’s linguistic rhetoric.
It goes further but basically, that’s it. We all use it.
I was a little irritated when I was searching for videos about rhetoric and found this. I thought, oh, yeah…another video about politicians and their rhetoric. Except that it isn’t. This is a very good film on the use of words, typography, and images to produce an argument.
Rhetoric.
ambiguous sexism
04 years ago
I love typography. There is something about the ways that letters and words fit together to make a beautiful design within themselves. Leading, kerning, serif or sans-serif — they are all elements that I love to play with and to use to make something original and appealing.
I was quite excited to find an introductory video via viz. that explains typography in an easy and straightforward way. Except…
Well, you watch it and see if you catch it before reading any further.
Did you see it? When the video defines who uses typography, it showed only men’s images when saying typographers, graphic artists, and art directors.
It’s a little thing, right? But it isn’t. It’s this type of inconspicuous sexism that can be the most damaging. When we see those images, we think, subconsciously, that only men will be in those positions. That’s simply not true. In my department, our lead graphic designer is a woman. A woman who oversees a staff of nearly a dozen people. Within her staff, many of the student workers who are majoring in graphic design are women. The student graphic designer who did the graphics for the class I’m teaching is a woman.
I’m not going out of my way to find sexism in the things I research. When it is there, though, I’m going to point it out.
Subtle things like these types of images are the things that I look at when I’m researching rhetorical placement of images. What kinds of messages are they giving out? What colors, fonts, images, and sounds (if any) are being used? How do these affect an audience and, what kind of an audience are they trying to reach?
It may seem innocuous. It can be just the opposite, though.
constructing identity
04 years ago
My world these days is full of thinking about how we create identity in online communities (specifically women). We create multiple identities (as we do in our offline lives — mother, student, employee, etc) and sometimes those identities are fractured or are portraying us in ways that are not as flattering as we would like.
This video shows some of the issues I’ve been thinking about. How far do we go to project ourselves in certain ways or how much attention are we paying to how we do project ourselves?
I’ve been wondering what kinds of responsibilities we have to ourselves, to other women, and to the girls coming behind us to create identities that avoid sexist stereotypes, contribute to stronger female images, and that build up women instead of tearing them down.
There is so much out there already tearing us down. Why do we persist in doing it to ourselves as well?
dancing through the blogosphere
04 years ago
So, I’ve decided that I’m no longer going to keep to my ten-year rule of posting only once a day. I collect things to write about and then when it comes to the next day, the news has changed and I no longer want to write about that topic. So I have pages and pages of stuff that is not relevant anymore simply because I wouldn’t blog about it when it was on my mind.
So there.
I know I’ve been writing about zooomr a lot lately. You know, I go through my phases of what interests me. Right now, that community is very interesting to me because it is on the cusp of big change. They are going *more* social — which is exactly what I love about social software and social networking. I do like the connections even if I am an introverted hermit of a geek girl. Heh.
–
So, the other day, a flickr user asked for a critique on his web site. He doesn’t ask in just any group — but he asks in a professional photographer’s critique group. Everyone kept writing, “looks alright by me” and “I like it.” What the heck? For photographs, we are *required* to critique the image on very specific points and I figure that’s what he wanted. He did say, after all, “Since this is a portfolio group, I thought I would open myself to all the critics I could find. Let me know what you think…”
So, what do I do? Yup, you guessed it. I critiqued it. I have to look at web sites and other materials on a daily basis with a critical eye. I figured I could give him some good feedback. So, I wrote
I’ll preface this by saying I’m on a Mac PowerBook G4 running Firefox 2.0.0.3. Part of my professional background is in usability, web development, and rhetorical values of text and graphics in online environments. That being said, these are only my opinions and are subjective. :-)
The most important things to remember are audience, context, and purpose. When you keep those three areas in mind, you can create a usable site that will promote you well.
I think it’s important to understand who your audience is. Are you trying to sell your photography to a certain demographic or just showcase it? In your contact, you write that you are seeking corporate, agency, and ministry-related assignments. Your site doesn’t say that to me, though, when I go to the splash page. Tell your audience up front what it is that you are doing. Let them know you are for hire for certain industries.
The brown text on brown background could cause problems for some who may have sight disabilities.
While flash is nice, also know that it is not always accessible for those with accessibility issues. That means you could lose customers because of it.
When I select a specific portfolio area, it would be nice if it closed with a click instead of having to open another in order to close one. Also, it would be better to have a gallery than to have rotating images. That could be confusing to a customer.
I do like the look of it and the palette. It has a relaxed atmosphere and makes me want to stick around and check out more. It is very peaceful. Your logo is wonderful — not too overwhelming and not too understated – perfect.
I realized, as I’m going through, that I am an expert in this field. I do know what I’m doing. I’m good at it. I not only have an education in looking at these kinds of things critically but I also have real-life on-the-job experience at doing so. I am good at this.
But he didn’t really want that kind of critique. He actually did want us to say, “atta boy, good job!”
Oy.
–
The ‘sphere is all-a-twitter over twitter. Do you twitter?
I thought about it. But really, who wants to see what I’m doing throughout the day?
wake up
go to the bathroom
let dakota out
find some clothes to wear
take a shower
brush my teeth
Bored yet? Oh, sure…you got stuck on the shower image, didn’t you? Heh.
Plus, I can’t post photographs to go along with my twitters. How would I convey my meaning without visual cues?
Really.
–
Speaking of visual cues, I am thinking more and more about the connection between bloggers’ text and images. Of course, you may realize that my thesis is on the autobiography of women’s traumatic blogs — specifically women who write about trauma and also use visual media to aid in that conveyance of information.
What they write and what their images say are not necessarily the same things. I find that interesting.
But it’s true even throughout the ‘sphere. People seem to miss that rhetorical connection between textual language and multimedia language.
I’m not sure why.
Maybe that’s the next step for the doctorate.
i am different
0
Rousseau, in discussing his particular confessional style of memoir writing, writes, “I am commencing an undertaking, hitherto without precendent, and which will never find an imitator…I am not made like any of those I have seen; I venture to believe that I am not made like any of those who are in existence. If I am not better, at least I am different.”
I have been blogging (or something akin to it online) for nearly 10 years. Before blogs were blogs, I was putting my thoughts on message boards and inviting comments there. I didn’t start this off as a confessional. I didn’t create it to become a subject of history or to become, like Samuel Pepys in his autobiographical style, an accumulative subject. I didn’t start a blog to write about my marginalized life. And yet, here I am – confessing, being a subject of history and an accumulative subject. I write about the ways I feel marginalized in today’s society.
I began this journey to have somewhere safe and free to write. I began this as a place to get those writing energies out, somewhere, anywhere. I write because I need to write. It fulfills me in ways that photography doesn’t. My words paint the pictures. It can be more blatant or more subtle depending on what I do with the words.
I’m working on my master’s thesis. I’m looking inward, at myself. I’m beginning to wonder if I’m self-absorbed, writing these past 10 years. I’m looking at my words, my photos, and determining what type of audience I’ve been writing for, what my voice has been, what type of identity I have created, and if I’m believable to anyone but myself.
I think I am. I mean, this is me – the real me – here on these pages. I tell the truth as I know it. I share my world as I see it, warts and all. But is it believable? Does it resonate? Does it matter?
This is me without the filters of big publication machinery. Without an editor. Without a publisher. My autobiography. My accounting of my life – here, right in front of you. My sorrows, my joys, my fears, my triumphs. All right here. In technicolor. For the world to see immediately.
Me.
visual rhetoric
0
One of the things that I’m drawn to again and again within my course of studies is rhetorical media.
What does an image relay to the person who views it? What does it mean from the person who has created it?
I think advertisers understand the concepts of rhetorical medial very well. For instance, the minute I see the black silhouette on bright backgrounds with white lines coming from its ears, I think, automatically, iPod, Apple, music, iTunes. It’s brilliant really.
But what about art?
I recently watched a movie, Cradle Will Rock, that addressed this very topic but in a subtle way. It portrayed Diego Rivera painting a historic image on the walls of Rockefeller Center for commission from John D. Rockefeller.
Rivera was a brilliant artist and wanted to paint the past, present, and future. He included scenes from American history. At the time of the painting, Lenin was in power and there were already fears of Americans being coerced by the communists. Rivera also portrayed what he saw for the future. He painted items that were on his mind, including a cell of syphiis.
What Rivera saw as a painting speaking to the state of the world and his vision of it, Rockefeller saw as an offront to the very foundation of the nation. This amazing piece of art that he commissioned was subsequently demolished with hammers.
What made this art so powerful that not only did two men see it differently but that it moved one man to have it demolished?
The Commercial Rhetoric Art Project looks at this topic in a new way. It takes common images that we see each day and rearranges them to give us a different message.
But what makes that message better – or worse? What makes it change an image from advertising to art? And is art an advertisement for an ideology?